Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6...

56
Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 Final Report December 2014

Transcript of Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6...

Page 1: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014

Final Report

December 2014

Page 2: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table of Content Page

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................................................................... iii

Acronyms: ............................................................................................................................................................................................... iv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 The Assignment ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Purpose of the Assignment ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.5 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.6 Organization of the Report ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Approach ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Target Audience ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Review of the Implementation Status .................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.4 Refinement of Data Collection Tools and Instruments .................................................................................................................. 4

2.5 Sampling Method and the Sample Size .................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research Assistants ........................................................................................................................ 5

2.7 Refining and Pre-testing of Data Collection Tools ............................................................................................................................ 6

2.8 Data Collection and Quality Control ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.9 Data Analysis and Report Writing ........................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.10 Stakeholders’ Feedback Workshop ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Findings of the Customer Satisfaction Survey.................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7

3.2 Connected Households ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

3.2.1 Socio-economic Status ................................................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2.2 Awareness of NAIVAWASS by Name ...................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2.3 Satisfaction Level of Customers .............................................................................................................................................. 10

3.2.4 Timeliness of the Bills .................................................................................................................................................................. 10

3.2.5 Current Mode of Receiving Bills ............................................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.6 Preferred Mode of Receiving Bills .......................................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.7 Preferred Method of Paying Bills ............................................................................................................................................ 11

3.2.8 Reliability of Water ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12

3.2.9 Connection, Disconnection and Reconnection ................................................................................................................. 12

3.2.10 Service Delivery Satisfaction Index ....................................................................................................................................... 15

3.2.11 Satisfaction Index by Zone ......................................................................................................................................................... 18

3.2.12 Water Quality Index ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18

3.2.13 Water and Service Delivery Satisfaction Index ................................................................................................................ 19

3.2.14 Complaint Handling ...................................................................................................................................................................... 19

3.2.15 Methods of Registering Complaints ...................................................................................................................................... 20 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS i December, 2014

Page 3: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.2.16 None Registered Complaints .................................................................................................................................................... 21

3.2.17 Resolved Complaints .................................................................................................................................................................... 21

3.2.18 Sewerage Services ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22

3.2.19 Likes/Dislikes & Suggestions by Household Customers .............................................................................................. 24

3.3 Unconnected Households .......................................................................................................................................................................... 26

3.3.1 Awareness of NAIVAWASS by Name .................................................................................................................................... 26

3.3.2 Heard of NAIVAWASS .................................................................................................................................................................. 26

3.3.3 Reasons why not connected to NAIVAWASS ..................................................................................................................... 27

3.3.4 Customers’ Interest to be connected with NAIVAWASS Services ............................................................................ 27

3.3.5 Main Sources of Water for those who are not Connected ........................................................................................... 28

3.3.6 Satisfaction with Water Quality .............................................................................................................................................. 28

3.3.7 Complaint Handling ...................................................................................................................................................................... 29

3.3.8 Method used to Report Complaints ....................................................................................................................................... 29

3.3.9 Potential Customers’ Likes, Dislikes and Suggestions .................................................................................................. 30

3.4 Commercial/ Institutional/Industrial Customers .......................................................................................................................... 32

3.4.1 Socioeconomic Status .................................................................................................................................................................. 32

3.4.2 Awareness of NAIVAWASS by Name .................................................................................................................................... 32

3.4.3 Main Source of Water .................................................................................................................................................................. 33

3.4.4 Satisfaction with Various Selection Factors ....................................................................................................................... 33

3.4.5 Service Delivery Index ................................................................................................................................................................. 34

3.4.6 Water Quality and Quantity ...................................................................................................................................................... 35

3.4.7 NAIVAWASS Overall Satisfaction Index (Water Quality and Service Delivery) ................................................. 36

3.4.8 Complaint Handling ...................................................................................................................................................................... 36

3.4.9 Sewerage Services ......................................................................................................................................................................... 38

3.4.10 Liked/Disliked & Suggestions .................................................................................................................................................. 40

3.5 Informal Settlements ................................................................................................................................................................................... 42

3.5.1 Socio-economic Status ................................................................................................................................................................. 42

3.5.2 Main Source of Water .................................................................................................................................................................. 43

3.5.3 Frequency of Fetching Water ................................................................................................................................................... 43

3.5.4 Water Charges ................................................................................................................................................................................. 44

3.5.5 Satisfaction with Water Quality .............................................................................................................................................. 45

3.5.6 Complaint Handling ...................................................................................................................................................................... 46

3.5.7 Likes/Dislikes & Suggestions by Informal Settlement Customers .......................................................................... 47

CHAPER FOUR: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 50

4.1 Key Findings .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50

4.1.1 Service Delivery Satisfaction Index ....................................................................................................................................... 50

4.2 Recommendations and Way Forward ................................................................................................................................................. 50

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS ii December, 2014

Page 4: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

List of Tables Table 1: Target and Achieved Sample Size ............................................................................................................................................................ 5

Table 2: Achieved Sample Size-Connected and Unconnected Customers .............................................................................................. 5

Table 3: Timeliness of the Bills ................................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Table 4: Service Delivery Satisfaction Index ....................................................................................................................................................... 17

Table 5: Satisfaction Index by Zone ........................................................................................................................................................................ 18

Table 6: Water Quality Index ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Table 7: Water and Service Delivery Satisfaction Index ................................................................................................................................ 19

Table 8: Suggested Areas for Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ 32

Table 9: Those who know the Company by Name ........................................................................................................................................... 33

Table 10: Main Sources of Water by Zone ........................................................................................................................................................... 33

Table 11: Summary of Service Delivery Index ................................................................................................................................................... 34

Table 12: Water Quality and Quantity by Zone ................................................................................................................................................. 35

Table 13: Water Quality and Quantity Satisfaction Index ............................................................................................................................ 36

Table 14: Overall Satisfaction Index....................................................................................................................................................................... 36

Table 15: Likes Cited by Commercial/Institutional/Industrial Customers......................................................................................... 40

Table 16: Dislikes Cited by Commercial/Institutional/Industrial Customers .................................................................................... 41

Table 17: Suggested Areas for Improvement ..................................................................................................................................................... 41

Table 18: Cost of De-fluorinated Water and None-fluorinated Water .................................................................................................... 44

Table 19: Water Quality by Zone ............................................................................................................................................................................. 45

Table 20: Summarized Water Quality Satisfaction Index ............................................................................................................................. 46

Table 21: Nature of Complaint .................................................................................................................................................................................. 46

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS iii December, 2014

Page 5: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Acronyms:

CBD : Central Business District

CCCR : County Council of Central Rift

CSI : Customer satisfaction Index

GoK : Government of Kenya

LCB : Local Capacity Builder

NAIVAWASS : Naivasha Water & Sewerage Services

NAWASSCO : Nakuru Water, Sanitation and Sewerage Company

NRW : Non-Revenue Water

O & M : Operations and Maintenance

RVWSB : Rift Valley Water Services Board

SMT : Senior Management Team

SNV : Netherlands Development Organization

SPA : Service Provision Agreement

SWTSS : Water Supply Services in Small Towns and Peri-Urban Areas

VEI : Vitens Evides International

WASH : Water Sanitation and Hygiene

WASREB : Water Services Regulatory Board

WaSSIP : Kenya Water and Sanitation Service Improvement Project

WSB : Water Services Board

WSP : Water Services Provider

WSUP : Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS iv December, 2014

Page 6: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background

Kenya’s development process is currently being guided by the ‘’Kenya Vision 2030” which is the Country’s new development blueprint covering the period 2008 to 2030. In line with this overall vision, the water sector has developed policies and strategies to support attainment of Vision 2030 goals. These include the Medium Term Plan (2012) and the National Water Services Strategy (NWSS) 2015. Overall, the goal of the NWSS is to ensure sustainable access to safe water and basic sanitation to all Kenyans, and to halve the proportion of people without sustainable access to these services by 2015, in line with MDG 7.

At the same time, Article 43 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (COK 2010) entrenches water (and sanitation) as a constitutional right by establishing a right to “reasonable standards of sanitation” and “clean and safe water in adequate quantities”, and Article 21 places an obligation on the government to take steps to progressively realize this right.

Articles 6, 174, 175 and 176 of the COK 2010 created a system of devolved government with a two-tier system of government comprising of (1) national and (47) county governments. The responsibility to manage water resources is retained by the national government, while the responsibility to provide water supply and sanitation services is devolved to county governments. However, this responsibility is delegated to semi-autonomous Water Service Providers (WSPs) by the county governments through specific Service Provision Agreements (SPAs) that define standards on quality, service levels and performance established by the regulator, the Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The Naivasha Water and Sanitation Services (NAIVAWASS) is the WSP mandated to provide water and sanitation services in the town of Naivasha town and its environs. It was incorporated on 8th September 2005 as a limited liability company under the Companies Act. Its service area covers approximately 941 km2 and has an estimated population of 300,000 people.

Since its formation, NAIVAWASS has been putting a lot of effort to improve service delivery to the residents of Naivasha town and its environs. However, a lot still remains to be done to address remaining challenges, including low water and sanitation coverage; high non-revenue water (NRW) levels; high operational costs leading to low O&M cost coverage; inadequate staff capacity; and poor corporate governance; among others. For the last 2 ½ years (since mid-2012), NAIVAWASS with the assistance of development partners has been on the path to turn around the operations of the company by addressing the identified challenges.

1.3 The Assignment

SNV Kenya has been working with Vitens Evides International (VEI) and Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WSUP) to improve technical and financial performance of NAIVAWASS with an aim of improving water and sanitation service delivery in Naivasha, with particular emphasis on the low income areas. The partners have been supporting the WSP to prioritize and implement concrete measures to improve operational efficiencies, increase revenue collection and sustain achieved service level improvements, while addressing identified governance challenges. One of the measures the partners undertook was to help improve dialogue between NAIVAWASS and its customers through establishment of a robust consumer feedback mechanism and regular customer satisfaction surveys (CSSs) to inform the intervention about pertinent issues, from a consumer’s perspective, and how best to address them.

A baseline CSS was carried out between October 2012 and March 2013. The survey’s key finding was that the overall service delivery satisfaction index was 59%. The key issues which contributed

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 1 December, 2014

Page 7: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

to the low index were identified as customer service, service delivery and ability of NAIVAWASS to fulfill its mandate. On the WSP’s general performance, i.e. service delivery, customer care services and company management, a mean score of 4.36 on a range of 1-10 was obtained.

Among the recommendations made was the need for NAIVAWASS to carry out on regular basis customer satisfaction survey to gauge level of customer satisfaction on NAIVAWASS services. Following the baseline survey, proposed measures were implemented by NAIVAWASS with the support of partners, hence the need for a 2nd CSS to monitor the changes in customer satisfaction.

SNV therefore engaged the services of a Local Capacity Builder (LCB), NEOLINK Consulting Associates, to carry out the 2014 customer satisfaction survey for NAIVAWASS.

1.4 Purpose of the Assignment

The objective of the assignment was to measure the level of customer satisfaction in comparison with the 2013 baseline, while proposing ways and means of improving dialogue between NAIVWASS and its consumers for the purposes of improving downward accountability and further enhancing the image of NAIVAWASS.

1.5 Scope of Work

The LCB was expected to: i) Review the implementation status of the recommendation of the baseline CSS for NAIVAWASS. ii) Refine data collection tools used during the baseline CSS. iii) Prepare an inception report with a clear work-plan for the 2nd CSS. iv) Undertake 2nd Customer Satisfaction Survey in liaison with NAIVAWASS staff and

management. v) Develop a plan for progressively enhancing customer satisfaction based on the review of the

baseline CSS and the findings of the 2nd CSS (2014). 1.6 Organization of the Report

What follows are four broad sections detailing the results of the comprehensive survey. Chapter Two outlines the research methodology; Chapter Three research findings; Chapter Four summary findings, conclusions and recommendations.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 2 December, 2014

Page 8: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2.1 Approach

To start off the assignment, an initial consultative meeting was held with NAIVAWASS’ Management and SNV’s Senior WASH Advisor to introduce the LCB to NAIVAWASS staff and management; harmonize expectations of both the client and the LCB; discuss the proposed work plan; and thereafter agree on the way forward.

The approach to the assignment was fully participatory, in close consultation with key stakeholders. The methodology, on the other hand, included a number of distinct but related stages to ensure all aspects of the assignment were adequately covered.

Specifically, the assignment was carried out in four stages as shown in the figure below:

2.2 Target Audience

The study targeted domestic, commercial, institutional and industrial customers residing within NAIVAWASS area of jurisdiction, divided into those who were connected (the real NAIVAWASS-customers) and those who were not connected (the potential customers). Zoning of the supply area was done to ensure that the right respondents of the supply area were interviewed. Zones/areas location can be found in the link: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=211126087896183026335.0004cc172ad22b86edead

2.3 Review of the Implementation Status

As part of the assignment, a review of the implementation status of the recommendation of the baseline CSS was done, so as to establish the extent to which NAIVAWASS has implemented the recommendations and highlight any improvements achieved by NAIVAWASS as a result of implementation of those recommendations. The review also guided the refinement of survey tools and instruments, and helped in identification of the following key issues that still remain either partially implemented or not implemented at all. For short term measures, these include:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 3 December, 2014

Page 9: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• Quality of water: has been improved but more still needs to be done to improve the quality further to the satisfaction of customers.

• Customer service: still has room for further improvement. • Capacity among NAIVAWASS employees: is still ongoing and additional in-house and formal

training is required. • Sewerage bursts and leaks repairs: have been intensified but sewer treatment works

rehabilitation is incomplete as only 70% of the works have been completed. • Customer communication strategy: has been developed but implementation is still very low.

Appropriate communication materials and messages have not been developed as recommended.

For long term recommendations, apart from annual CSSs which were ongoing, other recommendations had not been carried out. These were: • Expansion of water and sewerage infrastructure: has stared but at a very slow pace. • Formation of Water Action Group: has not been done and therefore needs to be fast tracked.

Detailed results of the review of the recommendations of the baseline CSS 1 are attached as Attachment I of this report.

The above review, together with the findings of 2nd CSS, was useful in informing the development of a plan for progressively improving customer satisfaction in NAIVAWASS.

2.4 Refinement of Data Collection Tools and Instruments

A combination of tools and instruments as well as methodologies to collect both quantitative and qualitative data was used. In order not to lose any learning from the baseline survey experience, the same tools were refined in consultation with the client and NAIVAWASS management. These comprised a set of questionnaires (attached as Attachment II) as follows: • General questionnaire (Attachment IIa) targeting households, commercial and institutional

customers. • Informal settlements questionnaire (Attachment IIb) targeting residents of informal

settlements who rely mainly on water kiosks. • Kiosk operators’ questionnaire (Attachment IIc) targeting kiosk operators who supply water

both in formal and informal settlements. 2.5 Sampling Method and the Sample Size

The survey covered both formal and informal settlements of NAIVAWASS’ supply area. Sampling was done from three categories of respondents namely: households, institutional/ industrial/ commercial consumers in formal area of supply; consumers in informal settlements; and water kiosk operators.

The sampling strategy for the respondents was random sampling where every customer had an equal chance of being selected. A 95% confidence level was used to select representative samples from the entire population of the respective category, excluding water kiosk operators. Sampling was based on number of households, institutions/ industries/ commercial businesses and water kiosks in the various NAIVAWASS zones. The previous sample size for these categories (excluding water kiosks) used during the baseline CSS was adjusted by 10% to accommodate increased population. The planned and actual sample size by category is given in table 1, followed by actual questionnaires achieved by zone in table 2 below.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 4 December, 2014

Page 10: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 1: Target and Achieved Sample Size

Category of Respondents Total Population Planned Sample Size Achieved Sample Size

Households 54,740

565 585

Institutional, Industrial and Commercial

242 135

138

Water Kiosk Operators

28 7 7

Total 54,998 707 730

Table 2: Achieved Sample Size-Connected and Unconnected Customers

Zone House holds Commercial / Institution / Industrial

Informal Settlements

Water Kiosks

Total Sample Achieved Connected Unconnected

Site and Service 59 8 1 68

Lake View 50 15 0 65

Kabati 51 14 3 2 70 CBD 46 11 126 1 184

CCCR 44 18 8 1 71 Kwa Muhia 41 1 42

Kihoto 64 64 Karagita 37 1 38 Kamere 36 1

37

Mirera 56 56 Kayole 35 35 Total 291 165 138 129 7 730

In both the baseline CSS (2013) and the current CSS II (2014), the respondents in Kihoto were considered as unconnected consumers as they still remain without water in spite of having an existing pipe network. Also, just like in the baseline CSS, the unconnected institutional/ industrial/ commercial water consumers were not interviewed because of their unwillingness to be interviewed. The issue they raise remains the same i.e. majority of them have their own boreholes and therefore interviewing them would not have added much value to the customer satisfaction survey since they do not consider themselves as NAIVAWASS customers.

2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research Assistants

Once the sampling process was completed, preparation for the data collection phase started with recruitment and induction of research assistants (RAs) from the supply areas. The RAs were identified by local leaders in consultation with NAIVAWASS staff, and selection was based on qualification and experience. The induction of the research assistants was done and covered the objectives of the survey; questionnaire content; interviewing techniques; data protection and field logistics. It was aimed at ensuring the enumerators thoroughly understood the questionnaires and the objectives of the survey while equipping them with necessary skills to administer the questionnaire effectively.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 5 December, 2014

Page 11: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.7 Refining and Pre-testing of Data Collection Tools

The data collection tools/ questionnaires were found to be suitable and effective for the survey exercise. Pre-testing was carried out through administration to various target groups in Kihoto, CBD, Site and Service, Lake View and CCCR. The purpose of pre-testing was to assess the respondents’ understanding of the questionnaire, time taken to administer it, identification of any ambiguities or unclear issues in the questionnaire as well as harmonization of understanding and interpretation of the questionnaire by the research assistants.

2.8 Data Collection and Quality Control

Administration of the questionnaires was carried out by the research assistants who were closely supervised to ensure collection of quality data. All zones/ supply areas were covered concurrently.

The enumerators interviewed households and institutional/ industrial/ commercial respondents while the supervisors concentrated on kiosk operators, as well as backstopping and supervising the research assistants. The supervisors reviewed all completed questionnaires at the end of each day to ensure data collected was complete as required. An overall Team Leader who was in charge of the assignment oversaw the overall field exercise.

2.9 Data Analysis and Report Writing

Data was analysed using SPSS and Excel packages, and the results used in preparation of reports. Using Excel made it possible to display the results visually in graphs, charts and tables for reader friendliness and easier understanding.

2.10 Stakeholders’ Feedback Workshop

A Stakeholders’ Feedback Workshop for a large mix of stakeholders including the County Government representatives, Rift Valley Water Services Board, NAIVAWASS staff and management, development partners, local leaders and consumers. In addition to sharing the results of the survey, the workshop provided a forum for the stakeholders to give further insights, comments and suggestions to the draft CSS report before finalization. A separate report for the Stakeholders’ Feedback Workshop is included as Attachment III.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 6 December, 2014

Page 12: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH FINDINGS 3.1 Findings of the Customer Satisfaction Survey 3.1.1 Introduction

This report is the 2nd in a series of 4 planned CSSs under the EKN-funded ‘’Stronger Service Providers, Better Services for All’’ project, supporting NAIVAWASS to improve water and sanitation services delivery to the residents of Naivasha town and its environs. The 1st (baseline) CSS was carried out between October 2012 and March 2013. The result gave an overall service delivery satisfaction index of 59%, with identified key areas of improvement in customer service being timeliness of services offered by NAIVAWASS and fast procedure of serving customers. On service delivery, NAIVAWASS was expected to improve on response to letters and mailed enquiries and integrity in delivering promises. Finally, on NAIVAWASS mandate, expansion of water and sewerage infrastructure and quality of water was raised as a key recommendation bearing on the above overall service delivery index.

When NAIVAWASS customers were requested to rate the company in relation to its general performance i.e. service delivery, customer care services and company management based on their level of satisfaction, they gave a mean score of 4.36 on a scale of 1 – 10, meaning that most people were not satisfied with the general performance of NAIVAWASS. The conclusion therefore was that NAIVAWASS needed to put more effort in service delivery, customer care services and company management to improve consumer confidence. The outcome of the 2nd CSS is given in the following sections, where comparison with the outcome of the baseline CSS is given where necessary, in order to give an idea of the changes that have occurred in customer confidence.

3.2 Connected Households

The customer satisfaction survey sought to understand the satisfaction level of both the connected customers, who formed 64% of the sample (baseline; 70%) and those who were not connected (36%). Inclusion of Kayole households which were not connected to NAIVAWASS water explains the increase in the %age of unconnected consumers compared to those connected. The result from the non-connected consumers provides a neutral opinion (like a control group). The figure below shows how the household questionnaires were administered.

The following section deals with the views of the domestic consumers who were connected to NAIVAWASS’ services.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 7 December, 2014

Page 13: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.2.1 Socio-economic Status

The socio-economic status that was sought in this survey included; household head, gender, level of education, whether the person being interviewed is employed and whether they know their water service provider and its name.

Household Head

Of the total respondents in the survey area, 70% were household heads while 30% were other family members who included grown up sons and daughters.

Gender

On gender, 52% of the respondents were male while 48% were female.

Level of Education

As shown in the figure, 39.8% of the households sampled had achieved secondary level and 37.4 college level. Only 9.5% had reached university level.

Employment Status

The survey further revealed that for those who were sampled, 83% were currently employed, of which 14% were civil servants, 25% private sector employees, 4% NGO employees and a majority of 57% were self-employed. Only 17% were not in any gainful employment.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 8 December, 2014

Page 14: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.2.2 Awareness of NAIVAWASS by Name

The consumers were asked if they knew their water service provider. 94% of the respondents said they were aware of their WSP, compared to the baseline (76.9%). For the people who said they knew the company by name all of them (100 %) said it was NAIVAWASS. This was an improvement from the baseline (92%).

The results for the baseline CSS 1 are given in the figures below. It is clear that more people not only knew the company that provides them with water by name, but also knew it by the correct name. This shows that NAIVAWASS had made its precence in Naivasha town and its environs to be felt by the residents of the area by ensuring active interaction with the people and by providing better services.

Consumers who did not know NAIVAWASS by name were asked if they had ever heard of NAIVAWASS and 53% said yes (baseline 69%), while 47% said no. This is presented in the figures below. The reason for the decline in the number of people who had never heard of NAIVAWASS could be that a lager sample of non-connected customers was picked in CSS II by inclusion of Kayole area.

CSS II Baseline CSS I

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 9 December, 2014

Page 15: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.2.3 Satisfaction Level of Customers

The main objective of this section was to establish the satisfaction level of customers along different selection factors. The figures below show the level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction of individual customers. It was noted that customers were dissatisfied with the following two main factors: • Very high bills; 71% • Buying water from vendors; 22% In comparison, the baseline survey main factors for connected customers were: • Inaccurate/inflated bills; 40% • Very high bills; 26%

CSS II Baseline CSS I

The outcome of the baseline CSS (2013) and CSS II (2014) have one thing in common; that consumers are not happy with charges for NAIVAWASS services, with the current survey showing an increase from 40% to 71% in the number of respondents saying the charges were high. It is important to note that generally, consumers had issues with bills sent to them - either because of high charges or because they were inaccurate/inflated or both. Though this might be just a perception, it is important for NAIVAWASS to address the twin issues.

3.2.4 Timeliness of the Bills

On the question whether they receive their bills on time, 82.2% said yes (baseline; 46.8%), while 17.6% said no. It was further noted that those who paid their bills on time were 84.2% (baseline; 73.3%) while 15.8% did not. This is presented in table 3 below.

Table 3: Timeliness of the Bills

The above shows that there was remarkable improvement in bill delivery and in the number of people who paid their bills on time. The reason could be that consumers were appreciative of services provided by NAIVAWASS and were therefore willing to pay for them, and on time.

CSS II Baseline CSS I Get bills on time

Yes No Total Yes No Total

82.4% 17.6% 100.0%

46.8% 53.2% 100.0%

Pay bills on time

84.2% 15.8% 100.0% 73.3% 26.7% 100.0%

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 10 December, 2014

Page 16: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.2.5 Current Mode of Receiving Bills

On the current mode of receiving bills, the results showed that 58% of the bills were hand delivered (baseline; 79%), followed by postal address at 27% (baseline; 17%), through SMS at 11% (baseline; 0%), while 4.0% were collected directly from NAIVAWASS office (baseline; 4%). The figure below shows the result of the analysis.

CSS II Baseline CSS 1

Results of CSS II and the baseline CSS shows that majority of the respondents in both cases received their bills by hand delivery. In CSS II, the numbers had come down to 58% down from 79%, probably because of introduction of SMS billing to NAIVAWASS customers. Delivery by postal address had also gone up from 17% to 27%.

3.2.6 Preferred Mode of Receiving Bills

On the preferred mode of receiving bills in future, hand delivery was the most preferred at 37% (baseline; 23%), followed by SMS at 36% (baseline; 29%) as illustrated in the figure below.

CSS II Baseline CSS I

The above results show that the preferred mode of receiving bills had changed from postal address (45%) to hand delivery (37%). SMS at 36% was the second most preferred mode of receiving bills. The convenience associated with the two methods might be the factor the customers might have considered in arriving at their preference.

3.2.7 Preferred Method of Paying Bills

On the preferred method of paying bills, paying at NAIVAWASS offices was the most preferred at 68% (baseline; 36%), followed by MPesa at 22% (baseline; 44%) and through bank at 22% (baseline; 20%). This is shown in the figure below.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 11 December, 2014

Page 17: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CSS II Baseline CSS I

Results of the baseline CSS showed that MPesa was the preferred method for paying bills. As a result, NAIVAWASS introduced the service via Pay bill number. However, as the above results shows, NAIVAWASS customers prefer to pay their bills at NAIVAWASS offices. This might be attributed to three factors; first, payment via pay bill number is charged to the consumer by the service provider, second is that NAIVAWASS has moved to better and more spacious offices which accommodate more customers, and the third reason could be attributed to the improved service delivery. NAIVAWASS should consider introducing ‘’Lipa na MPesa’’ service which is a free service (though with some limitations) as an alternative to the Pay bill system.

3.2.8 Reliability of Water

On the average numbers of days people received water in a week, majority of the customers at 54% said they received water 3 days in week while 22% said they received water 2 days in a week. The result of the baseline CSS showed that majority of customers at 47.2% received water 2 days a week while 29.9% received water 3 days a week. The number of days in a week people received water is illustrated in the figure below.

CSS II Baseline CSS I

It is clear from the above results that majority of the consumers were receiving water 3 days a week, which is an improvement from 2 days a week that the majority of the consumers were previously receiving. It shows that NAIVAWASS had improved on reliability of water service provision in Naivasha.

3.2.9 Connection, Disconnection and Reconnection

This section was used to identify if the customers understood the procedure of getting a new connection, disconnection and all that is involved as set by NAIVAWASS.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 12 December, 2014

Page 18: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Time taken to get a New Connection

Results of analysis of time taken to get a new connections shows that 50% of the respondents took 1 week to get a new connection (baseline; 5.3%), while 25% took 2 weeks (baseline; 63.2 %). The figure below provides the results of the analysis.

CSS II Baseline CSS I

The above results show that more people were getting new connections within one week as opposed to two weeks that was reported in the baseline CSS, which is an improvement.

Application for a New Connection

Before getting a new connection, customers apply by filling an application form. The results of the survey show that 95% of respondents filled an application form before being connected (baseline; 90%), while 5% did not. NAIVAWASS should try and identify the 5% connected customers who did not fill an application form to establish how it happened and whether they paid the requisite connection fees. The results are illustrated in the figure below.

CSS II Baseline CSS I

From the above figure, less people (5%) failed to fill application forms for new connections. Though this is a reduction from the 10% reported in the baseline CSS, it would be worthwhile to investigate who are these customers and how they got connected without filling application forms.

Conditions Provided in the Application Form

From the analysis, 96% of the respondents understood the conditions provided in the application form (baseline; 58%) while 4% did not, as shown in the figure below. This is a major improvement from the previous result where 42% of the applicants did not understand conditions on the application form.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 13 December, 2014

Page 19: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CSS II Baseline CSS I

The above figures show that more people were aware of the application form conditions, which was an improvement from the previously reported number in the baseline CSS.

New Connection Fees set by NAIVAWASS

The study reveals that 95% of the respondents were aware of connection fees as set by NAIVAWASS (baseline; 85%), while 5% did not know. This is shown in the figure below.

CSS II Baseline CSS II

The feedback was that more people were aware of the new connection fees compared with number of people who were aware of the same at the time of the baseline CSS. This could mean that more people were interested in NAIVAWASS’ services, possibly as a result of improvements in service provision.

Affordability of Connection Fees

On affordability of connections, 82% of the respondents expressed their satisfaction with NAIVAWASS new connection fees (baseline; 82%), while 18% felt that the fees were not affordable. This is shown in the figure below.

CSS II Baseline CSS 1

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 14 December, 2014

Page 20: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From the above results, the number of people who were of the opinion that connection fees were affordable had not changed since the last survey. This could be an indication of the need for more awareness about connection issues. Disconnection

The study sought to identify from the respondents those who had been disconnected in the past one year. Results show that only 5% had been disconnected. Of those disconnected, 87% said they were disconnected for none payment (baseline; 84%), while 13% sited misunderstandings between them and NAIVAWASS. This is shown in the figure below. CSS II Baseline CSS I It is clear from the above that the number of customers not paying their bills due to misunderstandings between the customer and the company had decreased, which might be an indicator of improved billing efficiency, a major source of misunderstanding, and also in customer relations by the Company. Time Taken to Reconnect Customers

After settling the bill or sorting out misunderstandings with NAIVAWASS, 57% of the respondents said it took NAIVAWASS between 1 and 2 days to reconnect their water (baseline; 50%), 43% between 3 and 4 days (baseline; 15%) while 0% took over 4 days to get reconnected (baseline; 35%). This is illustrated in the figure below. CSS II Baseline CSS I

The above results show that there was increased efficiency in reconnecting customers once they settled their bills as more people were now reconnected in not more than 2 days, while the maximum number of days it took to reconnected customers had reduced from more than 4 days to just 4 days.

3.2.10 Service Delivery Satisfaction Index

As shown in table 4 below, a service delivery index of 69% was computed (baseline; 56%), with all areas registering improved approval ratings of well above average. The results show that

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 15 December, 2014

Page 21: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

customer care staff still had the highest approval rating of 73%, up from 63% reported in the baseline CSS. Other areas that approval rating had registered notable improvement include: • Is an organization I am confident about; 72% up from 55% (baseline) • It is easy to identify its employees; 71% up from 46% (baseline) The results are a testimony that NAIVAWSS had taken decisive actions to improve service delivery and in particular customer service. Staff had been provided with uniforms and staff identity cards and customer service systems and procedures had been improved, based on the recommendations of the baseline CSS. NAIVAWASS should continue with this trend.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 16 December, 2014

Page 22: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 4: Service Delivery Satisfaction Index

Statement

CSS II Baseline CSS I Maximum

Score Achieved

Score Index Ranking

Position Achieved

Score Index Ranking

Position Customer care staff are courteous 5 3.67 73% 1 3.17 63% 1

Is an organization I am confident about 5 3.62 72% 2 2.76 55% 8

Has cordial relationships with clients and customers 5 3.58 72% 3 3.01 60% 3

Transparency at handling customers 5 3.56 71% 4 2.85 57% 4

It is easy to identify its employees 5 3.54 71% 5 2.29 46% 11

Has good telephone etiquette 5 3.50 70% 6 3.03 61% 2

Provides timely services 5 3.39 68% 7 2.59 52% 9

Has very effective procedures of serving customers 5 3.37 67% 9 2.80 56% 6

Always responds to customers' complaints, requests and queries 5 3.30 66% 9 2.83 57% 5

Keeping their promises 5 3.26 65% 10 2.49 50% 10

Responds to letters and mailed enquiries on time 5 3.21 64% 11 2.76 55% 7

Service Delivery Index 5 3.45 69% 2.76 56%

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 17 December, 2014

Page 23: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.2.11 Satisfaction Index by Zone

An average index of 69% was computed (baseline; 56%), with Kwa Muhia ranked position 1 with a satisfaction index of 74% (baseline; 58%) followed closely by Lake View at 72% (baseline; 47%). Table 5 below provides the results of the analysis.

Table 5: Satisfaction Index by Zone

Selection factors Index Site and Service

Lake View

Kabati Central Business District

CCCR Kwa Muhia

Provides timely services 68% 66% 74% 70% 67% 60% 67% Customer care staff are courteous 73% 73% 78% 74% 77% 61% 77% Has very effective procedures of serving customers 68% 69% 65% 67% 70% 57% 78% Keeping their promises 65% 68% 57% 71% 64% 55% 76% It is easy to identify its employees 71% 61% 80% 71% 74% 65% 75% Transparency at handling customers 71% 72% 73% 75% 71% 63% 72% Has good telephone etiquette 70% 69% 73% 67% 69% 67% 75% Responds to letters and mailed enquiries on time 64% 61% 68% 61% 65% 59% 73% Always responds to customers' complaints, requests and queries 66% 63% 78% 61% 66% 59% 72% Has cordial relationships with clients and customers 72% 73% 73% 70% 71% 65% 78% Is an organization I am confident about 72% 79% 72% 73% 69% 64% 76% Satisfaction Index 69% 69% 72% 69% 69% 61% 74% Satisfaction Index; Baseline 56% 54% 47% 52% 68% 60% 58%

The above results show that all zones posted an improved satisfaction index. The zone that recorded the highest rating is Lake View at 72% up from 47% (baseline), followed by Kabati at 69% up from 52% (baseline) and Kwa Muhia at 74% up from 58% (baseline). This is a good indicator that NAIVAWASS endeavoured to improve service delivery and hence the improved customer satisfaction levels.

3.2.12 Water Quality Index

An average water quality index of 77% was computed (baseline; 63%). This is shown in table 6 below.

Table 6: Water Quality Index

Statement

CSS II Baseline CSS I Maximum

Score Achieved

Score Index Achieved

Score Index

Quality of tap water, Smell 5 4.29 86% 3.75 63%

Quality of tap water, Clarity (Color) 5 4.20 84% 3.70 74%

Water pressure 5 3.79 76% 2.90 58% Amount of water you receive 5 3.61 72% 2.79 56%

Quality of tap water, Taste 5 3.30 66% 2.51 50%

Water quality index 5 3.84 77% 3.13 63%

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 18 December, 2014

Page 24: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The results show that all aspects of water quality improved considerably. The areas that registered the highest score were satisfaction with smell of water supplied at 86% up from 75% (baseline) followed by clarity of water at 84% up from 74% (baseline).

3.2.13 Water and Service Delivery Satisfaction Index

Table 7 is a summary of perceived level of customer satisfaction with NAIVAWASS. It shows the maximum score possible and the mean score achieved by NAIVAWASS. The achieved scores are then aggregated and converted to a percent which is the NAIVAWASS satisfaction index for the period under study.

Table 7: Water and Service Delivery Satisfaction Index

Statement

Maximum score

CSS II Baseline CSS I Achieved score

Index Achieved score

Index

Water quality 5 3.84 77% 3.13 63%

Service delivery 5 3.45 69% 2.78 56%

Overall Customer Satisfaction Index 5 3.65 73% 2.96 59%

A satisfaction index of 73% was computed compared with 59% reported in the baseline CSS. This was a major improvement as NAIVAWASS customers were now more satisfied in almost all areas as opposed to the baseline findings where customers were most dissatisfied with Water Quality and Service Delivery (timeliness of services, fulfilling promises and ease of identifying NAIVAWASS employees).

3.2.14 Complaint Handling

The respondents were asked if they ever had a reason to register a complaint with NAIVAWASS and 36% had a reason to register (baseline; 62.2%) while 64% did not (baseline; 37.8%). This is shown in the figure below.

This could be an indication of the improvements in NAIVAWASS consumer feedback mechanism, where customers became more confident to register their complaints. For those who had reasons to complain, majority at 35% mentioned inaccurate water bills (baseline; 18.3%), followed at 25% by infrequent water supply/rationing as their main reason for complaint (baseline; 35%). The baseline survey result indicated infrequent water supply/rationing as the main complaint followed by inaccurate water bills. The results of the analysis are presented in the figure below.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 19 December, 2014

Page 25: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CSS II

Baseline CSS I

The findings show that complaints about unreliable water supply/ rationing had gone down. However, complaints about inaccurate water bills had gone up. Overall, the two complaints still remain the as the top complaints, a scenario that is common in all zones. NAIVAWASS should look for a solution to these two in order to further improve customer satisfaction.

3.2.15 Methods of Registering Complaints

The complaints were registered through different channels. Face to face channel was used to register the highest number with 77% (baseline; 84.9%), followed by phone at 12% (baseline; 13.8%) and letters at 11% (baseline; 0.7%). The details are given in the figure below.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 20 December, 2014

Page 26: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CSS II Baseline CSS I

Face to face was still the preferred method of registering complaints, though the number of people who preferred this method had gone down. Registering complaints through letters had gone up from 0.7% to 11%, possibly because customers had gained more confidence in NAIVAWASS and believed their complaints would be attended to, even without visiting the Company’s offices.

3.2.16 None Registered Complaints

The figure below shows reasons why individual customers did not register complaints with NAIVAWASS. 50% gave the reason as not knowing the procedure for making complaints (baseline; 35.9%), 25% said they lacked confidence in NAIVAWASS (baseline; 33.3%) while 25% said they did not report because of fear - for the baseline CSS 1, the 3rd reason was no contacts of NAIVAWASS (30.8%). CSS II Baseline CSS I

The results show that there was an increase in the number of people who did not register their complaints because they did not know the procedure. NAIVAWASS should strive to sensitize its customers on the procedures to be followed when registering complaints. To be noted is the fact that those who did not report due to lack of confidence in NAIVAWASS had reduced from 33.3% to 25%, which means more people had gained confidence in NAIVAWASS.

3.2.17 Resolved Complaints

A Complaints Register is used for recording technical complaints such as lack of water, bursts/leaks and meter blockages that are received verbally or through phone. On the other hand, a Complaints Form is used to record complaints that need time to resolve, especially billing complaints that need

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 21 December, 2014

Page 27: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

verification of documents and data. Once resolved, the complainant is supposed to be informed that his issue has been concluded. On complaints resolved, customers were asked whether their complaints were addressed. Only 46.7% of complaints were addressed (baseline; 58%), with 53.3% of them claiming that their complaints were not addressed (baseline; 42%). The result is shown below. CSS II Baseline CSS I

With an effective complaints handling mechanism in place, it is prudent for NAIVAWASS management to investigate why there is an increase in number of unresolved complaints and take remedial measures.

3.2.18 Sewerage Services

This section was used to identify the sewerage coverage in the formal settlements. Out of the total respondents, 53.75 said their area was covered by the sewerage system (baseline; 75.8%), while 46.3 said they were not (baseline; 24.2%). Of those who reside within the areas covered by the sewerage system, 73% were connected to NAIVAWASS sewerage system (baseline; 72%), while 27% were not connected as shown in the figure below. CSS II Baseline CSS I

46.7% 58%

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 22 December, 2014

Page 28: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reasons why not Connected to NAIVAWASS’ Sewerage System

The study sought to identify why those residing withing the sewerage network were not connected. Majority of the respondents at 84% said they did not need sewerage facilities (baseline; 54%). This is presented in the figure below. CSSS II Baseline CSS I It might be worthwhile to find out why people residing in areas served by sewer services still prefer to do without the service. Problem of Smell from Sewerage Works From the analysis, 61% of the respondents said there was no problem of smell in their neighborhood (baseline; 25%), while 39% of the respondents admitted there was a problem of smell from sewerage works in their neighborhood as a result of pipe bursts and leakages (baseline; 75%). This is shown in the figure below. CSS II Baseline CSS I

The results show a major improvement since the baseline survey, which might be an indicator that NAIVAWASS had increased efficiency in its handling of sewer bursts and leaks.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 23 December, 2014

Page 29: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Willingness to Connect to NAIVAWASS Trunk Sewer Line The study sought to find out if those who resided in areas not covered by NAIVAWASS sewerage system would be willing to connect to the trunk sewer line if NAIVAWASS made it available to them. 52% of the respondents showed interest to connect to the trunk sewer (baseline; 78%), while 48% of the respondents expressed no interest (baseline; 22%).

The above results show that the number of people willing to connect to the trunk sewer had shrank. Once againg, it is important to find out the reasion behind peoples’ unwillingness to connect to the trunk sewer.

3.2.19 Likes/Dislikes & Suggestions by Household Customers

This section gives a summary of the results of analysis of likes, dislikes and suggestions by household customers. Likes Cited by household Customers

When asked whether there was something that they liked about NAIVAWAS, majority of the respondents at 54% said they liked good water services - adequacy, pressure and clean (baseline; 69%). A good customer service, which was not there in CSS 1, was mentioned by 23% of the customers. The details of the analysis are given in the figure below. CSS II Baseline CSS I The survey results show that while good water services was still at the top of the likes, there was a reduction in the percentage of people who were happy with good water services provided by

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 24 December, 2014

Page 30: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NAIVAWASS. The difference could have been taken up by those who said they like good customer services provided by the Company.

Dislikes Cited by Household Customers

The dislikes cited by household customers about NAIVAWASS were poor water services (rationing, low pressure, taste) at 42% (baseline; 55%), inaccurate/ unreasonable/delayed bills at 27% (baseline; 12%), poor customer service at 18% (baseline; 15%) and poor sewer services at 13% (baseline; 18%). The figure below presents results of the analysis. CSS II Baseline CSS I

When one compares the above results between CSS II and the baseline CSS1, it is evident that fewer customers disliked NAIVAWASS for providing poor water services, a sign that the Company had improved this service. On the other hand, there was an increase in the number of customers who felt that sewerage service delivery was poor, something the Company should look into to find out why this is the case. Suggested Areas of Improvement by Household Customers

The main area suggested by customers for improvement was water supply (source and quality) at 49.0% (baseline; 50.1%). Others were bills handling at 25.0% (baseline; 8.8%), sewer services at 13% (baseline; 14.5 %), and customer service at 10.0% (baseline, 8.0%). The details of the analysis are given in the figure below. CSS II Baseline CSS I

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 25 December, 2014

Page 31: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It is quite evident from the above results that NAIVAWASS still needs to improve on water services in order to gain more confidence from its customers.

3.3 Unconnected Households

The survey further sought to get views of the 37% of interviewed consumers who were not connected to NAIVAWASS’ water services. Below are the findings of the survey.

3.3.1 Awareness of NAIVAWASS by Name

Consumers were asked if they knew NAIVAWASS by name. 39% said they knew the company by name (baseline; 50.8%), while 61% said they did not (baseline; 49.2%). This is presented in the figure below. CSS II Baseline CSS I

The increase in the number of respondents who said they did not know the Company by name might be explained by the fact that the sample size for those not connected to NAIVAWASS services was increased from 30% to 37% as a result of inclusion of Kayole, a non-connected area.

3.3.2 Heard of NAIVAWASS

Further, consumers were asked if they had ever heard of NAIVAWASS. Of those sampled, 20% said yes (baseline; 52.2%), while 80% said no (baseline; 47.8%). This is presented in the figure below.

CSS II Baseline CSS I

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 26 December, 2014

Page 32: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The reason for the increase in the number of people who do not know the Company by name is the same as that explained in section 3.3.1 above i.e. inclusion of unconnected customers in Kayole.

3.3.3 Reasons why not connected to NAIVAWASS

The main objective of this section was to establish the reasons consumers were not connected to NAIVAWASS’ water.

The figure below shows the reasons why customers along various attribute were not connected. The survey shows that 48% were not connected because their area is not served with NAIVAWASS water (base line; 14.2%).

From the above, it is evident that majority of those not connected to NAIVAWASS services was because they did not have those services in their area.

3.3.4 Customers’ Interest to be connected with NAIVAWASS Services

An overall feedback from non-connected water consumers shows that 58% were willing to be connected to NAIVAWASS services (baseline; 90%), while 42% had no interest of being connected (baseline; 10%).

CSS II Baseline CSS I

The fact that the number of people willing to be connected had decreased from 90% to 50% is of concern, and NAIVAWASS should investigate the reasons behind the decrease in interest of connecting to their water.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 27 December, 2014

Page 33: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.3.5 Main Sources of Water for those who are not Connected

Result of the analysis shows that the two main sources of water for those not connected to NAIVAWASS’ services were vendors at 49% (baseline; 45.8%) and own well/borehole at 22.3% (baseline; 37.4%). This could be attributed to NAIVAWASS’ inability to provide adequate water supply or failure to supply water in their areas. The figure below presents details of the analysis of alternative sources of water in the survey area.

CSS II Baseline CSS I

From the above results, it is evident that water vendors remain the main source of water for those who are not connected to NAIVAWASS water. Own wells/ boreholes are also significant.

3.3.6 Satisfaction with Water Quality

The main objective of this section was to establish the satisfaction level of the non-connected consumers along different selection factors. Factors that were investigated include water taste, water smell and water clarity. Results show that 74% of the sampled customers were moderately satisfied (baseline; 33%), 13% were very satisfied (baseline; 29%), 0% were extremely satisfied (baseline; 14%) and 13% only slightly satisfied (baseline; 13%). CSS II Baseline CSS I

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 28 December, 2014

Page 34: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The above results show that there was an increase in the number of customers who were moderately satisfied with the quality of water they use. However, it is worth noting that the number of people who were extremely and very satisfied had reduced. NAIVAWASS should take advantage of the situation and recruit this segment of consumers as their customers.

3.3.7 Complaint Handling

The analysis shows that 1% of unconnected consumers sampled had a reason to complain to NAIVAWASS (baseline; 30.4%) while 99% had no reason to complain (baseline; 69.6%) as shown in the figure below. CSS II Baseline CSS I While noting that the number had gone down, the low figure is expected since they were not NAIVAWASS’ customers. For those who had reasons to complain, all (100%) cited sewer blockages/bursts (baseline; 8.1%). The 30.4% who had complained in baseline CSS I mostly had issues with lack of/unreliable water supply. Results of the analysis are given in the figure below. CSS II Baseline CSS I

3.3.8 Method used to Report Complaints

The analysis shows that of the complaints reported to NAIVAWASS, face to face method was used to report 50% of complaints (baseline; 92%), while an equal number i.e. 50% by phone (baseline 8%). This is presented in the figure below.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 29 December, 2014

Page 35: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CSS II Baseline CSS I

The above is a good indication that the dedicated line to NAIVAWASS recommended under CSS 1 was being used to report complaints. When consumers were asked how long their complaints took to be addressed, 50% said their complaints were addressed in less than a month while 50% claimed that their complaints were not resolved at all (baseline; 91.7%). CSS II Baseline CSS I The above result shows that complaint handling mechanism initiated by NAIVAWASS is working well as evidenced by the significant reduction in the number of complaints that were not resolved at all.

3.3.9 Potential Customers’ Likes, Dislikes and Suggestions

This section provides an insight into what non-connected consumers liked or disliked about NAIVAWASS, and their suggestions on areas that they felt NAIVAWASS should improve in order to attract them as their customers.

Consumers Likes The figure below shows that those who liked NAIVAWASS stood at 45% (baseline; 43.3%), which was attributed to the following: fair charges 15% (baseline; 1.9%), easy to identify staff (10%), good customer service 10% (baseline; 7.7%), provision of clean water 5% (baseline; 23.1%), and friendly staff 5% (baseline; 7.7%). However, 55% (baseline; 57.7%) of the sampled consumers liked “nothing” about NAIVAWASS.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 30 December, 2014

Page 36: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CSS II Baseline CSS I

Customers Dislikes

Results of the analysis shows that majority of the sampled consumers (55%) disliked NAIVAWASS because of poor service delivery (baseline; 65%). Details of the analysis are shown below. CSS II Baseline CSS I

Suggested Areas of Improvement by Non- Connected Consumers

Respondents gave their own views on how they thought NAIVAWASS should improve. 88.2% of them suggested provision of reliable (water and sewerage) services as the main area that NAIVAWASS needs to improve (baseline; 84%). The zone which strongly suggested service improvement was Kihoto at 52.9% (baseline; 52%), which can be attributed to a complete lack of water services despite being covered with the distribution network. Table 8 shows details of the analysis by zone.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 31 December, 2014

Page 37: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 8: Suggested Areas for Improvement

Zone Provide Reliable Services (Water and / or Sewerage)

Lower Sewer Connection Charges

Provide Sewer Services

Total

Lake View 5.9% 5.9% 0.0% 11.9%

Central Business District

17.6% 0.0 0.0% 17.6%

Kihoto 52.9% 0.0% 0.0% 52.9%

CCCR 11.8% 0.0 5.9% 17.6%

Total 88.2% 5.9% 5.9% 100.0%

3.4 Commercial/ Institutional/Industrial Customers

The survey sought to establish the satisfaction levels of Commercial/Institutional/Industrial customers served by NAIVAWASS. Below are the findings of the survey.

3.4.1 Socioeconomic Status

The socioeconomic information that was sought in the survey included: gender, respondent level of education, and whether they knew their water service provider (WSP) by name.

Gender

Of those interviewed in this category, 74% were male (baseline; 66.7%) while 26% were female.

Education Level

The figure below shows the level of education of those interviewed in the category. Majority of the respondents (48%) had college level of education, while 24% attained secondary level and 15 % had university level of education. While 12% had only primary education, a negligible 1% had no education at all.

3.4.2 Awareness of NAIVAWASS by Name

Customers were further asked if they knew their water service provider. 91% said they Knew their WSP by name (baseline: 93.2%), while 9% did not. The table below gives the results by zone.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 32 December, 2014

Page 38: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 9: Those who know the Company by Name

Zone

Those who know the company by name

CSS II Baseline CSS I Yes No Yes No

Site and Service 1.5%% 0% 0.9% 0% Lake View - - 1.7%- 0% Kabati 2.3% 0% 5.1% 0% Central Business District 81.0% 9.1% 80.3% 6.8% CCCR 6.1%% 0% 5.1% 0 Total 90.9% 9.1% 93.2% 6.8%

The above results show a slight improvement in the number of customers who knew the company by name in the CBD, Site and Service and CCR, but a drop in the number in Kabati.

3.4.3 Main Source of Water

Table 10 below shows other sources of water for commercial customers who were not connected to NAIVAWASS water in each of the zones investigated.

Table 10: Main Sources of Water by Zone

Zone Area Sources of Water for Commercial Users

Total Water Kiosk

Water Vendor

Private Connection

Own well/Borehole

Shallow well

Rain water

Kabati 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% Central Business District

0.0%

26.3%

23.7%

34.2%

2.6%

2.6%

89.5% CCCR 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 2.6% 0.0% 7.9% CSS II Total

2.6%

28.9%

23.7%

36.8%

5.3%

2.6%

100%

Baseline CSS I Total

10.3%

38.5%

2.6%

43.6%

-

2.6%

100%

It is clear that own well/ borehole remains the main source of water for commercial customers who were not connected to NAIVAWASS water (43%), followed by water vendors (38%).

3.4.4 Satisfaction with Various Selection Factors

The main objective of this section was to establish the satisfaction level of customers along different selection factors. The figure below shows the level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction of individual commercial customers along various attributes. According to 64% of the respondents, the main reason for dissatisfaction is very high water bills (baseline; 18%), followed by water rationing at 29%. In comparison, the top issue of dissatisfaction for those sampled in the baseline CSS 1was inaccurate bills at 42%.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 33 December, 2014

Page 39: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CSS II Baseline CSS I The assertion that bills were high should be looked into by NAIVAWASS. It is possible that what was in question was not a high tariff, but arrears that were included in the monthly bills. If this is found to be the case, then NAIVAWASS should find a solution which might include writing off old debts or allowing customers to clear the bills in agreeable installments.

3.4.5 Service Delivery Index

As shown in the table below, a service delivery index of 65% (baseline; 60%) was computed. From the table, it is clear that NAIVAWASS had improved its service delivery satisfaction level in all areas for this category.

Table 11: Summary of Service Delivery Index

Statement

CSS II Baseline CSS I Maximum

Score Achieved

Score Index

Position Achieved Score

Baseline

Is an organization I am confident about

5 3.58 72% 1 3.46 62%

Customer care staff are courteous

5 3.55 71% 2 3.44 69%

Has cordial relationships with clients and customers

5 3.52 70% 3 3.28 66%

Transparency at handling customers

5 3.44 69% 4 3.11 59%

Has good telephone etiquette 5 3.30 66% 5 3.03 69%

Has very effective procedures of serving customers

5 3.18 64% 6 2.98 61%

Always responds to customers' complaints, requests and queries

5 3.16 63% 7 2.96 58%

It is easy to identify its employees

5 3.10 62% 8 2.89 48%

Responds to letters and mailed enquiries on time

5 3.07 61% 9 2.88 54%

Provides timely services 5 3.06 61% 10 2.68 60%

Keeping their promises 5 3.04 61% 11 2.40 58% Service Delivery Index 5 3.27 65% 3.01 60%

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 34 December, 2014

Page 40: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From the above table, it is evident that NAIVAWASS had considerably improved its service delivery satisfaction level in all areas with the following two areas registering the highest improvement: • Is an organization I am confident about; 72% (baseline; 62%) • Transparency at handling customers; 69% (baseline; 59%)

3.4.6 Water Quality and Quantity

Table 12 below shows the satisfaction/dissatisfaction level of individual customers along each of the attributes investigated.

Table 12: Water Quality and Quantity by Zone

Statements Likert Scale Zone Total Site and Service

Kabati Central Business District

CCCR

The quality of tap water, Taste

Not satisfied at all 5% 5% Slightly satisfied 1% 30% 2% 33% Moderately satisfied 1% 38% 2% 41% Very satisfied 15% 2% 17% Extremely satisfied 1% 1% 3% 5%

The quality of tap water, Smell

Not satisfied at all 0% Slightly satisfied 6% 6% Moderately satisfied 21% 21% Very satisfied 1% 1% 55% 5% 62% Extremely satisfied 1% 1% 8% 1% 11%

The quality of tap water, Clarity (Color)

Not satisfied at all 3% 3% Slightly satisfied 3% 3% Moderately satisfied 20% 20% Very satisfied 1% 1% 56% 5% 63% Extremely satisfied 1% 1% 8% 1% 11%

The amount of water you receive

Not satisfied at all 13% 13% Slightly satisfied 1% 18% 19% Moderately satisfied 26% 2% 28% Very satisfied 1% 30% 3% 34% Extremely satisfied 1% 1% 4% 1% 7%

The water pressure

Not satisfied at all 9% 9% Slightly satisfied 6% 6% Moderately satisfied 1% 23% 2% 26% Very satisfied 1% 46% 3% 50% Extremely satisfied 1% 1% 7% 1% 10%

As table 13 below shows, a water quality index of 67% was computed (baseline; 65%). Comparison with baseline show that the water pressure rating had improved significantly from 59% to 69%.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 35 December, 2014

Page 41: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It is noted that NAIVAWASS needs to improve on the quality of tap water (taste) as the rating remained the same at 57%.

Table 13: Water Quality and Quantity Satisfaction Index

Statement CSS II Baseline CSS I Maximum

Score Achieved

Score Index Achieved

Score Index

The quality of tap water, Smell 5 3.78 76% 76%

The quality of tap water, Clarity (Color)

5 3.76 75% 78%

The water pressure 5 3.46 69% 59% The amount of water you receive 5 3.03 61% 57% The quality of tap water, Taste 5 2.84 57% 57%

Water quality and quantity index 5 3.37 67% 65%

The table shows that the overall index had improved slightly from 65% to 67%. Customers were more satisfied with water pressure and to some extent the amount of water received. On the other hand, water quality, especially smell needs to be addressed by NAIVAWASS.

3.4.7 NAIVAWASS Overall Satisfaction Index (Water Quality and Service Delivery)

The following table summarizes the perceived level of overall satisfaction with NAIVAWASS. It shows the maximum score possible and the mean score achieved by NAIVAWASS. The achieved scores are then aggregated and converted to a percent which is the NAIVAWASS overall satisfaction index for the period under study. An overall satisfaction index of 66% was computed (baseline; 63%). This is presented in table 14 below.

Table 14: Overall Satisfaction Index

Statement CSS II Baseline CSS I Maximum

Score Achieved Mean Index Achieved

Mean Index

Water quality index 5 3.37 67% 3.26 65% Service delivery index 5 3.27 65% 3.01 60% Overall customer satisfaction Index 5 3.32 66% 3.14 63%

The results show a slight improvement in both water quality and service delivery indices. This is commendable: however, there is still some aspect of both that requires intervention so as to consolidate overall customer satisfaction.

3.4.8 Complaint Handling

56% of the individual customers sampled had a reason to complain (baseline; 74.4%) while 44% did not. For those who had reasons to complain, 33.3% cited infrequent water supply/rationing as their main reason for complaint (baseline; 29.7%), while 31.4% mentioned inaccurate water bills (baseline; 20.6%). Full results are presented in the figure below.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 36 December, 2014

Page 42: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CSS II Baseline CSS I NAIVAWASS should address the twin problem of infrequent water supply and inaccurate water bills, as a scenario that is common in all zones and also because these were the same problems cited in the baseline CSS 1 study.

The complaints were registered through different channels. Face to face registered the highest number at 77% (baseline; 82%), followed by phone at 18% (baseline; 16%), and letters at 11% (baseline; 2%). CSS II Baseline CSS I

Face to face still remained the most preferred method of reporting complaints. Also, it was worth to note that the number of people reporting complaints through letters had increased, which is a show of confidence in NAIVAWASS in that one need not visit the Company to have their complaints resolved. The survey also wanted to find out whether customers complaints were addressed. Of these, 44% of respondents said complaints were addressed (baseline; 37%), with 56% of them claiming that their complaints were not addressed (baseline; 63%).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 37 December, 2014

Page 43: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CSS II Baseline CSS I The increase in number of people who said their complaints were addressed is an indication that NAIVAWASS had improved on customer complaints handling and resolving mechanism.

3.4.9 Sewerage Services

This section gives the results of the survey whose objective was to find out sewerage coverage in areas where most commercial/industrial/institutional customers are mainly located, which is CBD. Out of the respondents interviewed, 93% said they were covered by the sewerage system (Baseline; 96.6%), while 7% said they were not covered by the sewerage system. Of those whose area was covered by sewerage system, 91% were connected to NAIVAWASS sewerage system (baseline; 90%) while 9% were not connected. This is shown in the figure below.

CSS II Baseline CSS I

Reasons why not Connected to NAIVAWASS Sewerage System

The study sought to identify reasons why those covered by the sewerage network were not connected. 71% said they did not need sewerage facilities (baseline; 56%), while 29% of the respondents cited complicated connection procedures. This is presented in the figure below.

CSS II Baseline CSS I

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 38 December, 2014

Page 44: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The number of people who said they did not need sewerage services had increased, a matter of concern that NAIVAWASS should investigate to find out the cause of the apathy. Problem of Smell from Sewerage Works From the analysis, 44% of the respondents admitted there was a problem of smell from sewerage works in their neighborhood as a result of pipe bursts and leakages (baseline; 84%), while 56% of the respondents said there was no problem of smell (baseline; 16%). This is shown in the figure below. The above result shows that NAIVAWASS had tremendously improved on attendance to sewer bursts and leaks.

Willingness to Connect to NAIVAWASS Trunk Sewer Line The study sought to identify if those who resided in areas not covered by NAIVAWASS sewerage system were willing to connect to the trunk sewer line if NAIVAWASS made it available to them. Only 36 % of the respondents showed interest to connect to the trunk sewer line (baseline; 71%), while 64% of the respondents expressed no interest (baseline; 29%). CSS II Baseline CSS I

The fact that the number of people unwilling to connect to sewer truck had increased was not surprising because it confirmed the earlier assertion by people that they did not need sewer services. Once again it is important for NAIVAWASS to establish why people were not willing to connect to the trunk sewer line.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 39 December, 2014

Page 45: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.4.10 Liked/Disliked & Suggestions

This section details an analysis of what respondents liked, disliked and suggested among Commercial/Institutional/Industrial customers.

Likes cited by Commercial/Institutional/Industrial customers

When asked if there was anything they liked about NAIVAWASS, 76.4% of respondents in this category said there was (baseline; 70.5%), while 23.6% said they liked nothing about NAIVAWASS (baseline; 29.5%). The result of the survey shows that NAIVAWASS had improved in water quality rating (33.7%) and good services (water/ or sewer) (32%). The details of the analysis are given in table 15 below.

Table 15: Likes Cited by Commercial/Institutional/Industrial Customers

At least get water though little

Water is clean

There is sufficient water

Prices are fair

Friendly personnel

High pressure Good service (water and/or sewer)

None Total ZONE

Site and Service 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0 1.1% Kabati 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 2.3% Central Business District

0.0% 30.9% 4.5% 5.6% 0.6% 0.0% 28.6% 21.3% 91.5%

CCCR 0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 2.3% 1.7% 5.1% CSS II 0.0% 33.7% 4.5% 5.6% 0.6% 0.0% 32.0% 23.6% 100%

Baseline CSS I 14.4% 12.2% 7.6% 3.8% 3.8% 0.0% 21.2% 29.5% 100%

Dislikes Cited by Commercial/Institutional/Industrial customers

The baseline survey results indicated poor service delivery (water and sewerage) at 65.8% as the main dislike cited by customers about NAIVAWASS. This had significantly dropped to 27.1% in CSS 2, implying that there was major improvement in that area by NAIVAWAS. The other main dislike cited by customers was failure to respond promptly to complaints at 14.2%. This had gone up slightly to 14.7%. It is important to note that 25.4% cited there was nothing they disliked about NAIVAWASS (baseline; 3.3%). Table 16 below shows results of the analysis on dislikes cited by commercial customers.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 40 December, 2014

Page 46: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 16: Dislikes Cited by Commercial/Institutional/Industrial Customers

Zone

Statement Total

Inaccurate/Delayed bills

Poor customer service / Unqualified staff

Poor service delivery (water and sewerage)

Don't respond promptly to complaints and

Poor management

High / Expensive charges

Not well equipped

None

Site and Service 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1%

Kabati 0.6% 0.0% 0.0%% 0.0%% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% CBD 9.0% 8.5% 26.0% 13.0% 5.1% 6.8% 0.0% 24.3% 92.7% CCCR 1.1% 0.6% 1.10% 0.6% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 5.6% CSS II

10.7%

9.1%

27.1%

14.7%

6.2%

6.8%

0.0%

25.4%

100%

Baseline CSS I

6.7%

1.7%

65.8%

14.2%

5.1%

2.5%

0.8%

3.3%

100%

Suggested Areas of Improvement

The main area suggested by customers for improvement was given as service delivery (water and sewerage) at 35% (baseline; 40.9%). Others were proper bill management/ timely delivery of bills at 21.7%, customer care services, complaint handling and response at 18.6%. The details of the analysis are given in table 17 below.

Table 17: Suggested Areas for Improvement

Zone Proper bill management / Timely bill delivery

Service delivery (water supply and sewerage)

Customer care services, complaint handling and response

Quick response to bursts and leakages

Reduce service charge (water and / or sewer)

Expand sewerage network / facility

Total

Site and Service

0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%

Kabati 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% CBD 21.0% 32.5% 17.2% 3.2% 8.9% 10.8% 93.6%

CCCR 2.5% 0.7% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 3.8% Total 21.7% 35.6% 18.6% 3.2% 10.1% 10.8% 100% Baseline 12.2% 40.9% 13.4% 8.1% 3.4% 13.4% 100%

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 41 December, 2014

Page 47: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.5 Informal Settlements

The informal settlements are mainly served by water kiosks and water vendors. In Kamere, the water kiosks are supplied with water by NAIVAWASS, while in Mirera and Karagita, the boreholes and the water kiosks are privately owned by individuals. The residents of Mirera own their land while majority of the residents of Kamere and Karagita work in the flower farms. The survey’s objective was to find out the satisfaction level of informal settlement customers in Kamere, Karagita and Mirera on water quality and prices paid for water. The findings of the survey are in the sections that follow.

3.5.1 Socio-economic Status

The socioeconomic information that was sought in this survey included; whether the person interviewed was the household head, their gender, level of education and employment status.

Household Head

Of those interviewed, 65% were household heads while 35% were other household members such as grown up children.

Gender

Of the respondent interviewed, majority were male at 51% while 49% were female as shown in the figure.

Level of Education

On the level of education of the respondents, 42% had secondary level education, 36% had attained primary level, 17% college level while 2% had no formal education. Only 3 % of the people interviewed had university level education.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 42 December, 2014

Page 48: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Employment

The results of the analysis shows that 83% of the respondents interviewed were employed while 17% had no formal employment. Most of those employed worked at the flower farms.

3.5.2 Main Source of Water

The informal settlements are mainly served by water kiosks. This was confirmed by the findings of the survey which showed that 40% of the respondents got water from water kiosks (baseline; 54.1%), 31.55% from water vendors (baseline; 22.2%), and 16.2% from the lake (baseline; 2.7%).

CSS II Baseline CSS I

It is evident that water kiosks remained the main source of water in the informal settlements. However it should be noted that water vending had gone up and this should be reversed by NAIVAWASS through setting up more water kiosks in the informal settlements where the service is underprovided or does not exist at all.

3.5.3 Frequency of Fetching Water

The study revealed that majority of the respondents at 45% fetched water daily (baseline; 65%), 50% every alternate day of the week (baseline; 34%), and only 5% fetched water on a weekly basis. See the figure below. CSS I Baseline CSS I

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 43 December, 2014

Page 49: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.5.4 Water Charges

The question sought to identify whether the water prices charged were fair or not. Of those interviewed 67% said they were fair (baseline; 56.8%), while 33% thought they were not (baseline; 43.2%). The figure below gives the results of each zone/area. The results of the baseline survey showed that Mirera had the highest number (25.5%) that said the prices were not fair. This reduced to 10.9 % in CSS 2. On the other hand in Kamere, only 7.3% of the respondent said the prices charged were fair (baseline; 17.6%). The results are presented in the figure below. CSS II Baseline CSS I

Cost of de-fluoridated and fluoride water

A majority of 65.4 % of the respondents said the price paid for a 20 litre jerrican of de-fluorinated water was Kshs. 3 (baseline; 40.5%). On the other hand, 66% of the respondents said they pay Kshs. 2 for a 20 litre jerrican of non-fluoridated water (baseline; 31%). This is shown in table 18 below. Table 18: Cost of De-fluorinated Water and None-fluorinated Water

CSS II Baseline CSS I Cost of 20 litre jerrican of drinking water-De-fluorinated

Cost of 20 litre jerrican of drinking water-Normal

Cost of 20 litre jerrican of drinking water-De-fluorinated

Cost of 20 litre jerrican of drinking water-Normal

Cost Percent (%) Cost Percent (%) Cost Percent (%) Cost Percent (%) Kshs. 2 3.8 Kshs. 2 66.0 Kshs. 2 2.5 Kshs. 1 0.9

Kshs. 3 65.4 Kshs. 3 18.0 Kshs. 3 40.5 Kshs. 2 31.0

Kshs. 4 11.5 Kshs. 4 14.0 Kshs. 4 48.1 Kshs. 3 46.9 Kshs. 5 17.3 Kshs. 5 2.0 Kshs. 5 5.1 Kshs. 4 1.8 Kshs. 7 1.3 - - Kshs. 7 1.3 Kshs. 5 17.7 Kshs. 9 1.9 - - - - - - Kshs.10 1.3 - - Kshs.

10 1.3 Kshs. 7 0.9

Kshs. 20 1.3 - - Kshs. 20

1.3 Kshs. 20 0.9

Total 100 100 100 100

The conclusion from the above results is that more people were accessing de-fluoridated water at Kshs 3. Equally, more people were accessing untreated (fluoride) water at Kshs. 2 per jerrican.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 44 December, 2014

Page 50: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.5.5 Satisfaction with Water Quality

The main objective of this section was to establish the satisfaction level of customers in relation to the water quality.

Table 19 below shows the satisfaction/dissatisfaction level of individual customers along each of the attributes investigated.

Table 19: Water Quality by Zone

Factors Likert Scale Zone Area

Total Mirera Karagita Kamere Quality of water, Taste De-fluorinated

Not satisfied at all 14.1% 15.6% 9.4% 39.1% Slightly satisfied 31.3% 23.4% 6.3% 60.9%

Quality of water, Taste Normal

Not satisfied at all 0% 8.5% 22.0% 30.5% Slightly satisfied 3.4% 11.9% 23.7% 39.0% Moderately satisfied 3.4% 10.2% 5.1% 18.6% Very satisfied 1.7% 6.8% 1.7% 10.2% Extremely satisfied 0% 1.7% 0% 1.7%

Quality of water, Smell De-fluorinated

Not satisfied at all 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 5.3% Slightly satisfied 3.5% 1.8% 0% 5.3% Moderately satisfied 14.0% 10.5% 7.0% 31.6% Very satisfied 19.3% 22.8% 3.5% 45.6% Extremely satisfied 8.8% 1.8% 1.8% 12.3%

Quality of water, Smell Normal

Not satisfied at all 0% 0% 5.9% 5.9% Slightly satisfied 0% 1.5% 5.9% 7.4% Moderately satisfied 1.5% 11.8% 22.1% 35.3% Very satisfied 4.4% 25.0% 14.7% 44.1% Extremely satisfied 4.4% 1.5% 1.5% 7.4%

Quality of water, Clarity De-fluorinated

Not satisfied at all 1.8% 1.8% 0% 3.6% Slightly satisfied 0% 0% 1.8% 1.8% Moderately satisfied 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 5.5% Very satisfied 12.7% 25.5% 3.6% 41.8% Extremely satisfied 32.7% 7.3% 7.3% 47.3%

Quality of water, Clarity Normal

Not satisfied at all 0% 0% 1.4% 1.4%

Slightly satisfied 0% 0% 1.4% 1.4%

Moderately satisfied 0% 1.4% 12.9% 14.3%

Very satisfied 1.4% 27.1% 20.0% 48.6%

Extremely satisfied 10.0% 11.4% 12.9% 34.3%

Table 20 below is a summary of table 19 above. It shows a water quality satisfaction index of 64% (baseline; 68%). The rating was affected by low ratings for: • Quality of water, (taste) de-fluoridated; 32% (baseline; 52%) • The quality of water, (taste) normal; 43% (baseline; 56%)

It is important to note that consumers were satisfied with water quality in the following areas: • Quality of water, (clarity) de-fluorinated; 85% (baseline; 74%)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 45 December, 2014

Page 51: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• Quality of water, (clarity) normal; 83%, (baseline; 74%)

Table 20: Summarized Water Quality Satisfaction Index

Statements Maximum

Score

CSS II Baseline CSS I Achieved Score Index

Achieved Score Index

Quality of water, Clarity De-fluorinated 5 4.27 85% 3.71 74%

Quality of water, Clarity Normal 5 4.13 83% 3.7 74%

Quality of water, Smell De-fluorinated 5 3.54 71% 3.83 77%

Quality of water, Smell Normal 5 3.40 68% 3.78 76% The quality of water, Taste Normal 5 2.14 43% 2.80 56%

Quality of water, Taste De-fluorinated 5 1.61 32% 2.60 52%

Water quality index 5 3.18 64% 3.40 68% 3.5.6 Complaint Handling

The study sought information on complaint handling by NAIVAWASS and the first question asked was whether the respondents had reason to complain. Only 13% of the respondent had a reason to complain (baseline; 44.4%), while 87% did not (baseline; 55.6%). This is shown in the figure below. CSS II Baseline CSS I For those who had reasons to complain, 28.6% cited salty water as their main reason for complaining (baseline; 40%), 28.6% cited infrequent water supply/rationing (baseline; 20%), 14.3% mentioned kiosk operating hours (baseline; 17.5%), 0% mentioned unfriendly/rude staff (baseline; 11.3%), and 14.3% long queues and unreasonable charges (baseline; 5%). This is shown in the table 21 below.

Table 21: Nature of Complaint

Nature of Complaint Total

Long queues Unreasonable charges

Infrequent water supply

Kiosk operating hours

Salty Water

CSS II 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 28.6% 100%

CSS I 5.0% 5.0% 20.0% 17.5% 40.0% 100%

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 46 December, 2014

Page 52: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It is evident from the above table that infrequent water supply and water quality (salty water) are the main complaints that need to be addressed.

The complaints by this category were all (100%) registered through face to face (baseline; 87.2%). This is presented in the figure below. CSS II Baseline CSS I

Resolved Complaints Customers were asked whether their complaints were addressed: 50% of the respondents said their complaints were addressed while 50% claimed they were never addressed. This is presented in the figure below.

CSS II Baseline CSS I

As can be shown in the above figures, the results of both CSS 1 and CSS II are the same i.e only 50% of the complaints were resolved.

3.5.7 Likes/Dislikes & Suggestions by Informal Settlement Customers

Customers in the informal settlements were also asked what they liked, disliked about NAIVAWASS and their suggestions for improvement. The feedback given by the consumers is given below.

Areas Consumers Liked Most about NAIVAWASS

The aspects consumers liked most about NAIVAWAS were provision of clean water at 70% (baseline 24%) followed by affordability, proximity to water source at 20% (baseline; 64%). The details are given in the figure below.

Letters, 7.3%Phone, 4.9%

Face to face, 87.8%

Mode of reporting

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 47 December, 2014

Page 53: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CSS II Baseline CSS I

The above results show that at the time, the aspect consumers liked most about NAIVAWASS was provision of clean water as opposed to affordability, proximity to water source that was cited in baseline CSS I as the top like.

Aspects Consumers Disliked Most about NAIVAWASS Consumers cited unsafe water at 29% as the aspect they disliked most about NAIVAWASS (baseline; 30%), followed by infrequent water supply at 16% (baseline; 4%). On the other hand, 27% of the respondents had nothing they disliked about NAIVAWASS (baseline; 24%). Results of the analysis are given in the figure below.

CSS II Baseline CSS I

From the above, it is observed that provision of water that is not safe was still the main aspect that consumers disliked most about NAIVAWASS. The Company should therefore address this issue of safe water.

Suggested Areas of Improvement by NAIVAWASS

The result of the analysis shows that the area that was most recommended for improvement by the consumers in the low income areas was reduction of prices at 24% (baseline; 10%), followed by water purification/treatment at 23% (baseline;36%). Detailed results of the analysis are given in the figure below.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 48 December, 2014

Page 54: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CSS II Baseline CSS I

Though results of CSS 2 show that consumers would like prices to be reduced as a matter of priority, the quality of water is still of major concern to them and hence it is also a priority area that they would want NAIVAWASS to address.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 49 December, 2014

Page 55: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CHAPER FOUR: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS The survey sought to obtain an assessment and provide feedback on the level of consumer satisfaction with the water and sewerage services provided in NAIVAWASS’ area of jurisdiction. A combination of tools and instruments as well as methodologies to collect both quantitative and qualitative data was used. 4.1 Key Findings 4.1.1 Service Delivery Satisfaction Index

An overall service delivery satisfaction index of 73% was computed (baseline; 59%). This is a major improvement as NAIVAWASS customers were more satisfied in almost all areas under survey, as opposed to the baseline findings where customers were most dissatisfied with Water Quality (amount of water received & quality of tap water (taste)) and Service Delivery (timeliness of services, fulfilling promises and ease of identifying NAIVAWASS employees). However, there is still room for improvement and NAIVAWASS should ensure further improvements in both customer service and service delivery. On Mandate, NAIVAWASS still needs to expand both water and sewerage infrastructure and further improve on quality of water. Areas where water is still not available are in dire need of NAIVAWASS services, and there is great opportunity for NAIVAWASS to expand their customer base in these areas.

4.2 Recommendations and Way Forward

Though NAIVAWASS has improved its performance mostly in service delivery, there are still some areas that need special attention by NAIVAWASS. Therefore this section provides the recommendations of the survey, based on the feedback given by customers in the study area, including those raised by stakeholders during the stakeholders’ workshop.

4.2.1 Short term Interventions

The following are short term recommendations that focus on existing customers and are aimed at further improving the customers’ trust/confidence in NAIVAWASS. They are: • Improve billing and billing procedures by minimizing errors in water bills, posting bills on

time, ensuring proper meter reading in order to increase customer confidence and turn-over. • Improve aspects of water quality especially the water taste and fluoride levels. • Improve water quality, by investing in water testing laboratory. • Increase frequency/ reliability of water supply. • Acquire water tankers to supply water in areas that are not supplied with water. • Increase number of water kiosks especially in areas not adequately served by the existing

ones. • Build capacity among NAIVAWASS employees on customer care and right attitude towards

customers. • Implement Consumer Communication Strategy/ Plan that is already in place. • Sensitize communities on the need to be responsible citizens (practice community policing

and report illegal connections). • Give incentive to those who report illegal connections. • Dedicate staff who will deal with big consumers/government institutions • Promote NAIVAWASS as a corruption free organization.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 50 December, 2014

Page 56: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 - VEIHome | VEI · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014 ... 2.6 Recruitment and Induction of Research ... customer satisfaction survey to gauge level

Customer Satisfaction and Perception Survey Final Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4.2.2 Long term Interventions The following are the recommended long term interventions: • Expand water infrastructure and sources, especially those which can supply fresh water. • Develop a strategy for handling corruption related issues (Whistle browsers, hotline, Anti-

corruption box etc) • Ensure Naivasha WASH forum/ Water Action Group is fast tracked. • Continue to carry out customer satisfaction surveys on a regular basis to gauge level of

customer satisfaction in NAIVAWASS services.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAIVAWASS 51 December, 2014